BoxRec

samdance wrote:

gp. wrote:

samdance wrote:
Jesus what is your issue with gay people...leave us alone

That doesn't even make any sense, you cretin.

You'll work it out eventually Gareth

OK, just childish wankery now. You can't defend yourself so you are wittering like a six year old. Stupid, cowardly, childish and a bit of a pudendum. Well done on this thread; it's really shown the world that you re somebody to take notice of. You have never learned to cope without the adulation you used to get at 12 for being good at ping-pong, have you.

Talent isn't a myth, some people are naturally better at some skills/tasks/sports etc than others. Practice can improve this for the less skilled but that doesn't guarantee success. Some fighters have great natural ability and are great amateurs but flop as pros. Some fighters have poor natural ability, flop as amateurs but have great success as pros. Too many variables. A lot is down also down to luck, timing, preparation, mindset, confidence to name a few.

Some people are less talented than others but have great success. For example there are plenty of popstars who aren't particularly great singers but have tremendous success and plenty of nobodies who have fantastic voices.

I know one excellent example. A colleauge of mine AV (a friend, too) as a child was very gifted football player. He had been training with ED, both of them were born in 1986. When they were about 12, 13 both were among top 20, nothing more (considering their generation) in local club. My friend had some problems with injuries, has not been dedicated, too. ED was healthy and dedicated.......
Right now, my friend is lucky to have a decent job, but ED (he is super-star nowadays) earns for a day more than my friend for a year.

David Epstein, author of "The Sports Gene," a look at how much of athletic greatness is genetic and how much is learned.

"The '10,000-hour rule' is very attractive. It does give people hope," laughed Epstein. "But it suggests if every person isn't getting the same benefit, then they're just not trying as hard."

"No two people respond to training in exactly the same way because of their genes," said Epstein. "A very important kind of talent is the ability to profit more rapidly from one hour of practice than the next guy, and that's very much mediated by your genes."

Two high jumpers make the case: 2004 Olympic gold medalist Stefan Holm trained for 20 years; the guy who beat him for gold at the 2007 world championships, Donald Thomas, took up the sport eight months before the games. "They are two guys at the same athletic place through two completely different paths," said Epstein

Genes tailor-make a body for one sport -- and create some unusual proportions.

Take NBA All-Star LeBron James. No surprise the basketball prodigy is tall -- 6 foot 8 inches. But his wingspan is seven feet! Teammate Dwayne Wade is 6'4" -- his arms are 6'11" across. At the far other end of the spectrum: the tiny gymnasts, becoming tinier all the time. "Elite female gymnasts in the last 30 years have shrunk from 5'3" to 4'9" on average," said Epstein. "Better for them to rotate in the air."

Genetic gifts for one sport don't mean much across sports. "Michael Phelps has a very long torso, which is great for swimming speed, just like the long hull of a canoe," said Epstein. "Short legs. Large hands and feet. Phelps's odd body type makes him an unlikely track star, but just watch him in water.”

Epstein says today's intense competition is what has weeded out all but the athletes whose body types are perfect for the job. The extremes that produces are shockingly clear in photographer Howard Schatz's portraits of sports stars. You might legitimately wonder if these people -- from 95-pound figure skaters to 700-pound sumo wrestlers -- are even from the same species.

But perhaps the best illustration of how one body type can dominate a sport is marathon running. One small tribe in Kenya's Rift Valley has produced eight of the Top 10 fastest marathon times ever recorded.

"So what is it about the genetic makeup of these people that gives them this huge advantage?" Spencer asked. "A hot and dry climate causes the evolutionary adaptation of very long, slender body types," said Epstein, "Long legs proportional to body size, which is good for running, and very thin at the extremeties, and that's an adaptation for cooling." Thin legs mean it takes less energy to run. Growing up at high altitude produces great endurance.

I believe that people have a "calling." ... They have a talent for something that will make them better than most if they find out what that something is... This is why they give kids aptitude tests in school... What is your innate ability at math??? ... at numerical reasoning??? ... at inductive reasoning??? ... at deductive reasoning??? ... Batteries of these tests help kids determine their best career choices.

samdance wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

samdance wrote:
Based on what you halfwit, what you probably think. I'm so glad that this forum has some that can partake in an intelligent discussion, but it is frustrating when you have people like you who clearly have no ability to listen and ponder other theories

Why do you feel the need to ram a theory, that you've badly misunderstood, down people's throats? You look utterly imbecilic on this thread.

Ram down your throats? I think you badly misunderstood the point of discussing a subject in a forum. Don't fear keep practicing and working on your intelligence

Your bastardised theory has been proven, through discussion, to be shite. Yet you persist. That's all I meant.

Tomasino wrote:

samdance wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Why do you feel the need to ram a theory, that you've badly misunderstood, down people's throats? You look utterly imbecilic on this thread.

Ram down your throats? I think you badly misunderstood the point of discussing a subject in a forum. Don't fear keep practicing and working on your intelligence

Your bastardised theory has been proven, through discussion, to be shite. Yet you persist. That's all I meant.

I know, whenever there is a new theory most of the greatest minds come on boxrec to resolve the debate.

Talents no myth, I played football for years and was still horrendous

Funny thread BTW keep up the good work

samdance wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

samdance wrote:
Ram down your throats? I think you badly misunderstood the point of discussing a subject in a forum. Don't fear keep practicing and working on your intelligence

Your bastardised theory has been proven, through discussion, to be shite. Yet you persist. That's all I meant.

I know, whenever there is a new theory most of the greatest minds come on boxrec to resolve the debate.

Except the debates you start. It's not a new theory, just a stupid one you've cobbled together, that's bollocks and doesn't make any sense.

Tomasino wrote:

samdance wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Your bastardised theory has been proven, through discussion, to be shite. Yet you persist. That's all I meant.

I know, whenever there is a new theory most of the greatest minds come on boxrec to resolve the debate.

Except the debates you start. It's not a new theory, just a stupid one you've cobbled together, that's bollocks and doesn't make any sense.

Haha thanks for stating those facts, it's a theory about opinions based apon examples that back up the theory and that don't. That's why we call it a discussion. Go and do some reading on it so you can contribute intelligently without stating your opinions as facts. Cheers

There have been 8 pages of interesting discussion but to say talent is a myth is like saying height and obesity are myths.

samdance wrote:Anyone who has read the Matthew Syed book bounce or other books that argue the same theory will be aware of the theory that innate talent is a myth.
It argues that no one is born superior in skill than anyone else, and that everything is down to hours and hours of purposeful practice.

I am interested to hear people's opinions on this as I forever hear "that boxer wasted his talent" or rjj was naturally gifted etc.

If this Syed believes that then he is a complete idiot. More likely though he just wants to sell books. The complete idiots are those that believe "Talent is a myth." Yes, if you believe that, you're stupid. Sorry...

samdance wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

samdance wrote:
I know, whenever there is a new theory most of the greatest minds come on boxrec to resolve the debate.

Except the debates you start. It's not a new theory, just a stupid one you've cobbled together, that's bollocks and doesn't make any sense.

Haha thanks for stating those facts, it's a theory about opinions based apon examples that back up the theory and that don't. That's why we call it a discussion. Go and do some reading on it so you can contribute intelligently without stating your opinions as facts. Cheers

Nothing at all backs up your so called theory. You've read a book, misunderstood most of it then came on here to make a fool of yourself. That's not an opinion.

Tomasino wrote:

samdance wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Except the debates you start. It's not a new theory, just a stupid one you've cobbled together, that's bollocks and doesn't make any sense.

Haha thanks for stating those facts, it's a theory about opinions based apon examples that back up the theory and that don't. That's why we call it a discussion. Go and do some reading on it so you can contribute intelligently without stating your opinions as facts. Cheers

Nothing at all backs up your so called theory. You've read a book, misunderstood most of it then came on here to make a fool of yourself. That's not an opinion.

I've read up on opinions that dispute the theory too, and have come to my own conclusion that you cannot be born better in a complex skill than anyone else.

Can I ask you a question, have you ever fulfilled your potential in anything by getting to the stage where you believe you can't get any better? (That goes to anyone still reading this thread)

Tony1244 wrote:

samdance wrote:Anyone who has read the Matthew Syed book bounce or other books that argue the same theory will be aware of the theory that innate talent is a myth.
It argues that no one is born superior in skill than anyone else, and that everything is down to hours and hours of purposeful practice.

I am interested to hear people's opinions on this as I forever hear "that boxer wasted his talent" or rjj was naturally gifted etc.

If this Syed believes that then he is a complete idiot. More likely though he just wants to sell books. The complete idiots are those that believe "Talent is a myth." Yes, if you believe that, you're stupid. Sorry...

Tony, the book discusses the theory that anyone can become an expert with 10000 hours of purposeful practice within reason and that talent does exist but is largely irrelevant.

samdance wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

samdance wrote:
Haha thanks for stating those facts, it's a theory about opinions based apon examples that back up the theory and that don't. That's why we call it a discussion. Go and do some reading on it so you can contribute intelligently without stating your opinions as facts. Cheers

Nothing at all backs up your so called theory. You've read a book, misunderstood most of it then came on here to make a fool of yourself. That's not an opinion.

I've read up on opinions that dispute the theory too, and have come to my own conclusion that you cannot be born better in a complex skill than anyone else.

Can I ask you a question, have you ever fulfilled your potential in anything by getting to the stage where you believe you can't get any better? (That goes to anyone still reading this thread)

Yes, counting money. I can't do it any faster no matter how many hours I put into it. Maddening!

Tomasino wrote:

samdance wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Nothing at all backs up your so called theory. You've read a book, misunderstood most of it then came on here to make a fool of yourself. That's not an opinion.

I've read up on opinions that dispute the theory too, and have come to my own conclusion that you cannot be born better in a complex skill than anyone else.

Can I ask you a question, have you ever fulfilled your potential in anything by getting to the stage where you believe you can't get any better? (That goes to anyone still reading this thread)

Yes, counting money. I can't do it any faster no matter how many hours I put into it. Maddening!

Anything complex with lots of different aspects to it?

No doubt the idea of talent is overplayed massively. I get the sentiment too...it's an easy way out for people to shrug off their shortcomings.

People like the romantic notion of divine talent. But at the same time at the very top of any pursuit small advantages make a big difference when everyone else is so dedicated too.

Ezzard wrote:No doubt the idea of talent is overplayed massively. I get the sentiment too...it's an easy way out for people to shrug off their shortcomings.

People like the romantic notion of divine talent. But at the same time at the very top of any pursuit small advantages make a big difference when everyone else is so dedicated too.

That's completely my point, no matter how good you get at something complex, there is still going to be thousands of small even tiny improvements in technique etc you can make, it's almost limitless given enough time and staying healthy

samdance wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

samdance wrote:Anyone who has read the Matthew Syed book bounce or other books that argue the same theory will be aware of the theory that innate talent is a myth.
It argues that no one is born superior in skill than anyone else, and that everything is down to hours and hours of purposeful practice.

I am interested to hear people's opinions on this as I forever hear "that boxer wasted his talent" or rjj was naturally gifted etc.

If this Syed believes that then he is a complete idiot. More likely though he just wants to sell books. The complete idiots are those that believe "Talent is a myth." Yes, if you believe that, you're stupid. Sorry...

Tony, the book discusses the theory that anyone can become an expert with 10000 hours of purposeful practice within reason and that talent does exist but is largely irrelevant.

Talent is largely relevant. That's hogwash to say talent isn't relevant. 10,000 hours of purposeful practice will make us all better. But I'd still be worse in basketball after 10,000 hours than a tall, extremely talented guy if he practiced 100 hours.

Not just a tall guy. You wouldn't be as good as Iverson either

Tony1244 wrote:

samdance wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

If this Syed believes that then he is a complete idiot. More likely though he just wants to sell books. The complete idiots are those that believe "Talent is a myth." Yes, if you believe that, you're stupid. Sorry...

Tony, the book discusses the theory that anyone can become an expert with 10000 hours of purposeful practice within reason and that talent does exist but is largely irrelevant.

Talent is largely relevant. That's hogwash to say talent isn't relevant. 10,000 hours of purposeful practice will make us all better. But I'd still be worse in basketball after 10,000 hours than a tall, extremely talented guy if he practiced 100 hours.

Based on what, let's do the maths;
You train 10000 hours over 2 years that's roughly 14 hours a day.
Talented guy trains 100 hours over 2 years that's roughly 14 minutes a day.
I would bet my life on it that you would be far better.

Sam hasn't even managed to be a mediocre poster and communicator on the internet. I don't think he's capable at excelling at anything.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Sam hasn't even managed to be a mediocre poster and communicator on the internet. I don't think he's capable at excelling at anything.

Hush now...adults are talking

samdance wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

samdance wrote:
Tony, the book discusses the theory that anyone can become an expert with 10000 hours of purposeful practice within reason and that talent does exist but is largely irrelevant.

Talent is largely relevant. That's hogwash to say talent isn't relevant. 10,000 hours of purposeful practice will make us all better. But I'd still be worse in basketball after 10,000 hours than a tall, extremely talented guy if he practiced 100 hours.

Based on what, let's do the maths;
You train 10000 hours over 2 years that's roughly 14 hours a day.
Talented guy trains 100 hours over 2 years that's roughly 14 minutes a day.
I would bet my life on it that you would be far better.

You would lose that bet big time. This book seems to be for people who believe "You can do anything and everything you want to do." It was a cute song by Harold Melvin and The Bluenotes, but by the time I was a young adult I knew it was BS. They made some money on the song. This author made some money on the book, both spewing total nonsense.